DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 12-15 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 12-15, line 1 it appears that “aid” should read –said--.
In claims 17, line 1 it appears that “ach” should read –each--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 12-13, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US 4,053,155) in view of Rice (US 3,097,849).
With respect to claim 1, Williams teaches a golf putting poker game device (column 6, line 25-column 7, line 19) comprising: a putting field (10) having an upper surface (figures); a plurality of putting cups (T1-T6) extending into said upper surface of said putting field, said putting cups being arranged into an array of rows and columns (figures; and column 2, lines 23-30); a plurality of playing card indicia (H1-H6), each playing card indicia being positioned adjacent to a respective one of said putting cups whereby each playing card indicia is configured to establish a playing card value for each of said putting cups (figures; and column 2, lines 23-30).
With respect to claim 1, Williams does not teach a ramp, said ramp being positionable to extend forwardly from said upper surface of said putting field over and forwardly from a front edge of said putting field wherein said ramp is configured to facilitate a golf ball to be putted onto said putting field from a position forward of said putting field.
However, Rice teaches a putting poker game (title; figures 1-2; and column 1, line 48-column 2, line 13) with a ramp (21), said ramp being positionable (on the ground, a floor, etc) to extend forwardly from said upper surface of said putting field over and forwardly from a front edge of said putting field wherein said ramp is configured to facilitate a golf ball to be putted onto said putting field from a position forward of said putting field (title; figures 1-2; and column 1, line 39-column 2, line 13).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the ramp/frame of Rice on the putting area/field of Williams in order to prevent warping and/or to allow the cup array to be movable.
With respect to claim 2, Rice teaches each putting cup having a depth wherein each putting cup is configured to facilitate retention of the golf ball within each putting cup when the golf ball has entered the putting cup (figure 2; and column 1, line 71-column 2, line 1).
With respect to claim 3, Rice teaches comprising the depth of each putting cup being less than half a diameter of the golf ball (figure 2).
With respect to claim 4, Williams teaches a back board (12) positioned adjacent to a back edge of said putting field (10) (figures 1-3).
With respect to claim 5, Williams teaches said back board (12) having a height greater than said putting field wherein said back board extends upwardly from said back edge of said putting field such that said back board is configured for inhibiting a golf ball from rolling off of said back edge of said putting field (figures 1-3).
With respect to claim 8, Williams teaches each of said side boards (14) having a respective height greater than the height of the putting field wherein each of said side boards extends upwardly from said respective lateral side edge of said putting field such that each of said side boards is configured for inhibiting the golf ball from rolling off of said putting field over said respective lateral side edge of said putting field (figures 1-4).
With respect to claim 12, Rice teaches said putting cups being arranged into six columns and five rows (figure 1, note the comprising language).
With respect to claim 13, Rice teaches said playing card indicia including playing card values of 8 through ace for four different suits and one joker (wild card 18). It is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to add another wild card to the game table to give the player an addition shot at landing on a wild card. The courts have determined that the duplication of parts for a mere multiplied effect, which is the intent of the instant application, is not a patentable concept. Please see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) and St. Regis Paper Co. V. Bemis Co., Inc., 193 USPQ 8, 11.
With respect to claim 16, the columns on the board (10) of Rice are capable of being oriented parallel to said lateral side edges (14) of said putting field (10) of Williams.
With respect to claim 17, Williams teaches that each of said rows being parallel to said back edge of said putting field (figures 2-3).
With respect to claim 18, Rice teaches an approach surface (the ground, a floor, etc), said approach surface extending forwardly from said ramp and away from said putting field, said approach surface being elongated (column 1, lines 68-71).
Claim(s) 6-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US 4,053,155) in view of Rice (US 3,097,849) as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Barlow (US 20030148813A1).
With respect to claim 6, Williams and Rice do not teach back board having ends aligned with lateral edges of said putting field when said back board is positioned adjacent to and coextensive with said back edge of said putting field.
However, Barlow teaches a back board (56/56a) having ends aligned with lateral edges of said putting field when said back board is positioned adjacent to and coextensive with said back edge of said putting field (figures 8, 10, and 15).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the backboard construction of Barlow in the collective game system of Williams and Rice in order to securely prevent the ball from leaving the game field in a removable manner.
With respect to claim 7, Williams teaches a pair of side boards (14), each of said side boards being positionable adjacent to a respective lateral side edge of said putting field (figures 1-4).
With respect to claim 9, Barlow teaches each of said side boards (32) having a respective rear end positionable aligned with an outward directed face of said back board (56/56a) (figures 8, 10, and 15); and a pair of couplers (brackets 80) at each of said ends of said back board, each coupler engaging a respective one of said side boards wherein said side boards and said back board are joined to form a border frame around the lateral side edges and said back edge of said putting field (figure 15; and paragraph 40).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US 4,053,155), Rice (US 3,097,849), and Barlow (US 20030148813A1) as applied to claims 1, 4, 7, and 9 above, and further in view of Green et al. (US2011/0124427A1) (hereafter Green).
With respect to claim 10, Williams, Rice, and Barlow do not teach each of said side boards having a length such that a forward end of each side board is aligned with a forward edge of said ramp when said rear end is aligned with said outward directed surface of said back board.
However, Green teaches each of said side boards having a length such that a forward end of each side board is aligned with a forward edge of said ramp when said rear end is aligned with said outward directed surface of said back board (figure 4).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the side board/ramp configuration of Green in the collective game system of Williams, Rice, and Barlow in order to prevent the ball from traveling off the side of the ramp.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US 4,053,155) in view of Rice (US 3,097,849) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Postula (U S5,108,101).
With respect claim 11, Williams and Rice do not teach said ramp having a width equivalent to a width of a forward edge of said putting field.
However, Postula teaches said ramp (30) having a width equivalent to a width of a forward edge of said putting field (figure 1).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the ramp width of Postula on the in the collective game system of Williams and Rice in order to create a desired longitudinal playing surface.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US 4,053,155) in view of Rice (US 3,097,849) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baldwin (US 10,716,987B1).
With respect claims 14-15, Williams and Rice do not teach said putting field having a fold line along an axis perpendicular to said back edge and said front edge of said putting field; and said fold line being centrally positioned between said lateral side edges of said putting field.
However, Baldwin said putting field having a fold line along an axis perpendicular to said back edge and said front edge of said putting field (figures 7-10; column 5, line 55-column 6, lines 38; and column 7, lines 21-27); and said fold line being centrally positioned between said lateral side edges of said putting field (figures 7-10; column 5, line 55-column 6, lines 38; and column 7, lines 21-27).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the fold line of Baldwin on the in the collective game system of Williams and Rice so that the system can be more easily carried.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed.
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KILEY SHAWN STONER whose telephone number is (571)272-1183. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KILEY S STONER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735